The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the template namespace and module namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:
Stub templates
Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.
Userboxes
Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
The template is redundant to a better-designed template.
The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used.
The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing.
Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing. Instead, you should edit the template to fix its problems. If the template is complex and you don't know how to fix it, WikiProject Templates may be able to help.
Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.
To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process. The use of Twinkle (explained below) is strongly recommended, as it automates and simplifies these steps. Note that the "Template:" prefix should not be included anywhere when carrying out these steps (unless otherwise specified).
Step
Instructions
I: Tag the template.
Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:
If the template nominated is inline, do not add a newline between the TfD notice and the code of the template.
If the template to be nominated for deletion is protected, make a request for the TfD tag to be added, by posting on the template's talk page and using the {{editprotected}} template to catch the attention of administrators or Template editors.
For templates designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the TfD notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.
Do not mark the edit as minor.
Use an edit summary like Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]] or Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]].
Before saving your edit, preview your edit to ensure the Tfd message is displayed properly.
Multiple templates: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{subst:Tfd|heading=discussion title}} or {{subst:Tfm|name of other template|heading=discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code).
Related categories: If including template-populated tracking categories in the TfD nomination, add {{Catfd|template name}} to the top of any categories that would be deleted as a result of the TfD, this time replacing template name with the name of the template being nominated. (If you instead chose a meaningful title for a multiple nomination, use {{Catfd|header=title of nomination}} instead.)
TemplateStyles pages: The above templates will not work on TemplateStyles pages. Instead, add a CSS comment to the top of the page:
/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en-wiki.kfd.me/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023_September_27#Template:template_name.css */
For deletion: {{subst:Tfd2|template name|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}}
For merging: {{subst:Tfm2|template name|other template's name|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}
If the template has had previous TfDs, you can add {{Oldtfdlist|previous TfD without brackets|result of previous TfD}} directly after the Tfd2/Catfd2 template.
Use an edit summary such as Adding [[Template:template name]].
Multiple templates: If this is a deletion proposal involving multiple templates, use the following:
{{subst:Tfd2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}
You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ). Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.
If this is a merger proposal involving more than two templates, use the following:
{{subst:Tfm2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|with=main template (optional)|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}
You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ), plus one more in |with=. |with= does not need to be used, but should be the template that you want the other templates to be merged into. Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.
Related categories: If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code in the |text= field of the Tfd2 template but before the text of your rationale:
Please notify the creator of the template nominated (as well as the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger). It is helpful to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then, add one of the following:
For merging: {{subst:Tfm notice|template name|other template's name}} ~~~~
to the talk pages of the template creator (and the creator of the other template for a merger) and the talk pages of the main contributors. It is also helpful to make any interested WikiProjects aware of the discussion. To do that, make sure the template's talk page is tagged with the banners of any relevant WikiProjects; please consider notifying any of them that do not use Article alerts.
Multiple templates: There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination: please write a personal message in these cases.
Consider adding any templates you nominate for TfD to your watchlist. This will help ensure that the TfD tag is not removed.
After nominating: Notify interested projects and editorsEdit
While it is sufficient to list a template for discussion at TfD (see above), nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention from and participation by informed editors. All such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing.
To encourage participation by less experienced editors, please avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations in the messages you leave about the discussion, link to any relevant policies or guidelines, and link to the TfD discussion page itself. If you are recommending that a template be speedily deleted, please give the criterion that it meets.
WikiProjects are groups of editors that are interested in a particular subject or type of editing. If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the TfD. You can use {{Tfd notice}} for this.
Notifying substantial contributors to the templateEdit
While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the template and its talkpage that you are nominating for discussion. To find the creator and main contributors, look in the page history or talk page.
At this point, you've done all you need to do as nominator. Sometime after seven days have passed, someone else will either close the discussion or, where needed, "relist" it for another seven days of discussion. (That "someone" may not be you, the nominator.)
Once you have submitted a template here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is successful it will be added to the Holding Cell until the change is implemented. There is no requirement for nominators to be part of the implementation process, but they are allowed to if they so wish.
Also, consider adding any templates you nominate to your watchlist. This will help ensure that your nomination tag is not mistakenly or deliberately removed.
Twinkle is a convenient tool that can perform many of the posting and notification functions automatically, with fewer errors and missed steps than manual editing. Twinkle does not notify WikiProjects, although many of them have automatic alerts. It is helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects that don't receive alerts, but this has to be done manually.
Anyone can join the discussion, but please understand the deletion policy and explain your reasoning.
People will sometimes also recommend subst or subst and delete and similar. This means the template text should be "merged" into the articles that use it. Depending on the content, the template page may then be deleted; if preserving the edit history for attribution is desirable, it may be history-merged with the target article or moved to mainspace and redirected.
Templates are rarely orphaned—that is, removed from pages that transclude them—before the discussion is closed. A list of open discussions eligible for closure can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Old unclosed discussions.
Administrators should read the closing instructions before closing a nomination. Note that WP:XFDcloser semi-automates this process and ensures all of the appropriate steps are taken.
Single-use template. Suggest subst and delete. Izno (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think am missing something here. Is this a new policy that a template should be removed despite it being very useful? How else is the complexity of the political parties splitting and reuniting going to be explained? All in words is not a solution. This is too complicated for that. Any other suggestion is welcome. I'm not an active editor anymore. But it pains to see hardword done by me and a few other editors just put off for deletion. I honestly don't see the reason explained here. Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 18:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The template may be deleted but the content inside the template would be substed onto the only page which uses it. Izno (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mishmash of individuals who spied for Israel as agents, were employees of Israeli intelligence as case officers who recruited spies, Israeli undercover officers, and individual accused, but not confirmed, of working for Israeli intelligence. This is a randomly-selected subset of individuals related to "Israeli spies," who are more comprehensively labeled with the Israeli spies, a more appropriate grouping here. Longhornsg (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Perfectly useful navigational box, modelled on Template:Soviet Spies, with the same clear inclusion criteria as Category:Israeli spies: "The category Israeli spy includes Israeli and non-Israeli spies for Israel. Israelis who spied for other countries are included under the nationality they served for." The existence of subsets does not make the selection random. Uriahheep228 (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't WP:WHATABOUTX. What's the inclusion criteria? Why is Meir Max Bineth, a minor figure who served 2 years in Israeli military intelligence included, but Rafi Eitan, arguably one of the most notable figures in Israeli intelligence is not? The category is far more expansive and properly differentiates between people who spied for Israel and those who worked for agencies like the Mossad. Longhornsg (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I linked to the Soviet template to clarify the inclusion criteria, which is being a spy for Israel, and structure of the template. Working in intelligence is not the same thing as being a spy and there is a separate Template:Israeli Intelligence Community, which from what I can see has no current overlap with this one. Eitan was in charge of an intelligence agency that carried out spying operations, but his article doesn't say anything about him being a spy himself. Bineth's article talks about how he spied on Egypt. Eitan would be an obvious inclusion if Lekem had its own navbox, like how Template:NKVD links to the NKVD's leaders but is distinct from the Soviet spies navbox. Uriahheep228 (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:NENAN, lower-division football club which currently has only 1 player with Wikipedia article. Snowflake91 (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I question whether this template is useful or whether keeping an up-to-date listing of every People's Deputy is going to be easy to maintain. Ideally, at least in my understanding, templates should not need to be frequently updated. Also, this template is simply used on the article of everyone mentioned on it so it doesn't seem to serve an informational purpose when their position can just be mentioned in the article content. LizRead!Talk! 02:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This stale template, used on a few talk pages, links to a defunct task force. Remove all transclusions and delete the template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Navbox with no main article and only one link in the body. Not usable for navigation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I've added the list from the main article about the ministry and linked the main article about the ministry as there is no article for the position of the Minister of Justice. I've also added the navbox to the main article --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No transclusions, documentation, or categories. It has one incoming link from a discussion in 2011. It may have been superseded by a better template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Navbox with no main article and only one link to a standalone article in the body. Not enough content for a navbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
three or fewer team links, per prior discussion (not counting links to an article about the sport, which doesn't count as a team link). Frietjes (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: "San Lorenzo de Almagro sections" has three links. Isn't it enough? Is there a specified miniumum for that? Fma12 (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Substitute and delete. We can move the content in these templates to their respective clubs' articles, to give readers an idea about what other sports the club also have a team for. I'm not sure if that's the best option for all clubs mentiooned above, but it will be suitable for clubs such as Smouha SC for example; an article with the name of a sports club, but mainly discusses the football team only (which is the most notable division of the club). Ben5218 (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
so, why not have a section which discusses the club since sidebars are not visible on mobile? and what is the source for this list of sports? Frietjes (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
if sidebars (and navboxes) aren't visible on mobile perhaps we should delete all sidebars (and navboxes)? Or perhaps a better solution would be to make them visible on mobile --SuperJew (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Getting anything new done on mobile sounds simple but never seems to happen.... Joseph2302 (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding a list of sports the club participates in to a separate section sounds like a good option to me, personally I don't mind it if it can be applied to the majority of clubs mentioned above. Regarding your question about the source for the list of sports for Smouha SC, the example I mentioned, it was the club's website, and various posts from the club's social media accounts published during the period when I created that template. Ben5218 (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete three links are not enough for a template, as per consensuses on previous TFDs for these sections templates. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This isn't Wikimedia Commons. {{Created with}} doesn't use this template, and it's not like localisation is required in enwiki. This template is only transcluded once in what looks to be a sandbox. —Matr1x-101(Ping me when replying) {user page(@ commons) - talk} 20:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Template that consists almost entirely of redlinks. There are only two transclusions of this, one on the main "Canada Cup" article and one on a "List of Canada Cup winners" sublist that's entirely redundant to the first transclusion since it provides no new information that isn't already in the parent article. Both articles, further, are up for a bundled AFD as unsourced, and even in the (unlikely, though I won't say impossible) event that they can be salvaged with better sourcing, this still wouldn't be needed in templatespace, as it could just be subst'd into the main article with the list article kiboshed as an unnecessary content fork. Bearcat (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Probably subst then delete if this is closed before the Afd. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All but two of the links are Dispenser links. Dispenser's site is no longer functional, and the user has effectively retired. For replacements of the functioning links, Citationbot can be invoked with the Wikipedia:Citation expander gadget, and the XTools link can be found in either the meta:MoreMenu or the XTools gadgets. SWinxy (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and update with new links as needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and update. The other tools are still as helpful, especially the alt text toolbox. Though, was there supposed to be Earwig copyvio detecter link there?--ZKang123 (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and update It serves a useful function (or did when it was still working OK. Replacing the dead tools with others is a better path. - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and update per the above. The remaining tools may still be useful, and we really should add other links such as the copyvio detector as ZKang123 says. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Replacing actual URLs with this template inside citations' |url= parameters is not even slightly helpful. All that does is greatly impede the ability of editors to fact-check our articles, by "hiding" the URLs, while at the time time increasing the template/transclusion count and parser load on the page. I could see this maybe being kept, if it were redocumented as not for use inside citations, but I really don't see any general use for it. It is much simpler to just paste the URL in than to carefully extract an exact string from it, so as a "utility" template it doesn't actually offer any utility. As far as its use inside citation templates goes, this is quite counter-productive. Update: See also GreenC's comment below about maintenance and correction problems introduced by templates like this. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 19:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 07:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KEEP. The use of the template on over 4,300 pages is evidence that other editors do find it useful. For me, a large part of the template's value is that once the editor has identified the Google Books ID, it's plug-and-play; unlike you, I don't start with an URL to "just paste," I start with the template and go to the URL to confirm that the desired page is available. I acknowledge that you have a well-informed opinion and considerable experience, and I submit that this is a case of different strokes. No doubt, your choices are simpler for you and offer greater utility to you. Others find enough value in this template to keep it as it is. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not such evidence at all. 4,300 pages on a site with millions is nothing. Surely at least hundreds of thousands with GBooks links, and something like 400 more of them are added per day (without this template). And various editors go around robotically applying templates anywhere they think they can without much regard to whether they're making an improvement. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
English wiki has 1,974,794 Google Books links ie. the template is used in 0.00217 or two-tenths of 1 percent. -- GreenC 18:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Couldn't the main Google books template serve in its place? Because on the main template, there is the ability to link to the page number when citing a book using the Google Book option. From both template pages using examples of linking or citing a page, Google books: Brackenridge, H. M. History of the Western Insurrection, p. 42, at Google Books; Google Books URL: Brackenridge, H.M. History of the Western Insurrection. p. 42. Both links go the same page and have the same URL. The same link location is also there for the options for the front cover, keyword search, text search, and title page complete with inscriptions. We have two templates that can do the same job. Template:Google books is used on about 14,000 pages. Perhaps this should be merged instead of going for an outright delete. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should at least be merged, since it's redundant. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This template produces a URL, while the main template produces an entire formatted reference. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Nothing useful is accomplished here - the URL itself describes the book's parameters in a key-value format. * Pppery *it has begun... 03:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's an opaque and sometimes redundant format, though. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's true of lots of URLs, but they are for clicking on, not for manually examining element-by-element within them by a human. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 07:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: The URL isn't "hidden", it's just represented in a way that's easier to understand and edit (e.g. url-encoding q/dq values). That's the priority for article sources! It's rendered articles that are optimized for browsing. Also, Google Books tends to push its new UI on users, which produces worse and longer links. {{GBurl}} lets one avoid this, as long as they can find the book ID. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, the TFD tag for this discussion is noincluded, meaning it doesn't show up in transclusions like normal. I'm concerned that this might limit its visibility, but I also understand that this template's deletion is more relevant to editors than to readers. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was necessary, to keep from breaking an F-load of citations in live articles. If you want to increase visibility you could drop a notice about this TfD at, e.g., WT:CITE and WT:CS1. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 07:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. I feel like I vaguely recall User:GreenC once mentioning something about how google books links are extra susceptible to link rot due to how the service will reformat its URLs from time to time. I might be misremembering this, but I wonder if GreenC might have some input here as a link rot expert. It seems like if my hazy recollection is accurate, this template (which I personally don't use) might be a single point of update in case of a google books URL change, which could save a bot run of length equal to this template's mainspace transclusion count. The comment I'm kinda remembering may have been referring to google books altering its primary keys, rather than URL format, in which case this template seems not helpful.Separately, I think I would oppose redocumenting this template to suggest use solely outside of citation templates. I was once cleaning up some article that used this template in "author, page" inline citation style, with the page numbers piped into a URL created from this template. The URLs did not work, so all I had to go on was the surname of an author to try to determine what book they were supposed to reference. After about 45 minutes of searching, I found a work that seemed very plausible, only later to discover that the work was indeed cited in full in the article, in the References subheading, with no citation template. Apart from my own error of not scrolling all the way to the bottom section of the article before attempting citation cleanup, the point is that not documenting the bibliographic information before using this template to return a direct page URL at the top of the article was not a good practice, although the scenario I created for myself through inattention was probably borderline worst-case in terms of failure mode. Folly Mox (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A more common problem is if one of the URLs goes dead. This happens. None of our tools are going to detect it because they don't support the template. This is a general problem with all URL templates, there are thousands. It's cleaner and better to use plain URLs standard tools can parse, not hide them inside special templates no one is checking for link rot. -- GreenC 18:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my experience, auto-archived Google Books links are almost never functional. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I appreciate this makes it look cleaner in the wikitext without all those weird key/values that get copy pasted in. And it has a nice uniform Wikitext standard feel to it. Citation bot cleans up these URLs so that's not really a problem. The 1.9m Google Books figure I gave above does not include the 4,300 that use this template. Because the tool that counts links assumes they are plain URLs and not a special template. This underscores the problem with URL templates, of which Enwiki has many thousands. Tools don't support them because there are too many and hard to program for. They create all sorts of unintentional problems. It's a growing problem. Another example: InternetArchiveBot, Citation bot, WaybackMedic, etc.. they don't support this template, link rot will go undetected and and unfixed. So whatever minor convenience and aesthetic factor this template is used for, it creates real problems longer term with maintenance and whatever else people use Wikitext for. -- GreenC 18:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment If those closes delete, I can write a tool to convert them to plain URLs. -- GreenC 18:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment SMcCandlish raises a good point. And I think that rather than use Google Books URLs at all, we should be using ISBNs and linking Special:BookSources via Template:Cite book. SWinxy (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that it's better if GB links can be avoided entirely, but {{GBurl}} seems like the "lesser evil". jlwoodwa (talk) 05:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After reading this discussion, I support deletion, as per SMcCandlish and GreenC. Kpratter (talk) 07:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Authors often paste Google Books URLs that have extra parameters they don't understand and didn't intend to go in the URL. Using this template is cleaner and helps people understand what they're doing. Additionally, using a template allows changes to be made globally, for instance if Google Books modifies their URL scheme. In fact, Google Books has already done that several times. As an example, if I go to Google Books, search "Encyclopedia Britannica", and click the link for "Britannica Concise Encyclopedia" from 2008, I end up with this in my address bar: "https://www.google.com/books/edition/Britannica_Concise_Encyclopedia/ea-bAAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=encyclopedia+britannica&printsec=frontcover&bshm=rimc/1". Google Books URLs did not used to have this format. andkore 00:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Replace with {{google books|plainurl=yes}}. I have long been a proponent of URL-formatting templates that actually help stave off link-rot by allowing the maintenance of many links at once, but we don't need this duplication. We have a long history of folks decrying the use of templates in favour of doing everything by hand but eventually we saw sense. —Phil | Talk 14:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 14:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, helps by splitting the Google URL into id and page number, and can be used to avoid nonfunctional archiving. —Kusma (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
three or fewer team links, per prior discussion (not counting links to an article about the sport, which doesn't count as a team link). Frietjes (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None link to any club department or section. Links that direct to sports articles do not count as "team links". Per this discussion. Fma12 (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unused. Only four links. Also a non-winning team. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 13:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 13:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Random and ever-incomplete, hodgepodge of US diplomats who have touched the Middle East. This sidebar could theoretically be double or triple the size based on existing WP articles, and there's no reason rhyme or reason for what qualifies for inclusion here. Better as a category, rather than a sidebar. Longhornsg (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Propose mergingTemplate:Lx with Template:Pagelinks.
Duplicate functions, but Pagelinks (Module:PageLinks) has more features. Lx is meant to support a broad category of shortcut templates, but they can also be served by PageLinks. (See also the no-consensus of merging a bunch of link templates.) SWinxy (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably? What I'd do is to change its uses (e.g. Template:Lc) to use {{#invoke:PageLinks}} before redirecting. SWinxy (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment:SWinxy, the TfM tag seems to be messing up XFDcloser. See Special:Diff/1174719924. I know it's against convention, but perhaps put the TfM tag at the end of the template to prevent this? CLYDETALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 07:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Concern: I tested using Pagelinks instead of Lc at a CFD and it omits the "Category:" prefix from the page name. This is not acceptable in that context. Can Lc be changed in such a way as to retain the category namespace in the page name? – FayenaticLondon 08:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How did you test it? According to the testcases, the "Category:" prefix should be shown. Lc will add that prefix when it invokes Module:PageLinks. SWinxy (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This was previously discussed here. The shortcut templates such as Lc don't need the full namespace to be written out, whilst Pagelinks does, which is why the template doesn't work when they're swapped out unless the page linked is from the article namespace. Happily888 (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment since this merge is occurring... some additional work on it could be done at the same time. Has thought been given on making a separate transclusions link for templates? ({{tl}}) and a separate redirects links for all of them, and a separate non-transclusion--non-redirect links; as these are used on deletion discussions, those would seem to be relevant. -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like, individual templates for (Page+WhatLinksHere) and (Page+Transclusions)? SWinxy (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) would become Template (edit | talk | history | links [redirects] | transclusions | watch | logs | subpages ) or Talk (edit | subjectpage | history | links [redirects] | watch | logs | subpages ) or Page (edit | talk | history | links [redirects] | watch | logs) or something like that. -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know if I get what you're saying. But if you wanted to create multiple templates with slightly varying results, with Module:PageLinks, it's as easy as creating a template with {{#invoke:PageLinks|main|page=Example|separator=pipe|edit|t|h|wlh|w|tl}}. SWinxy (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: So far, almost no discussion on the actual merge proposal. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment to the closer: it appears that {{Summarize section}} should be replaced by {{Overly detailed|section}}, since the former applies only to sections and the merge target can also apply to entire articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No transclusions. Created in 2014, this template has always been an indigent relation of the much more popular {{sfn}} and its fancy friends. It appears that someone has finally put the last few transclusions out of their misery, presumably replacing them with templates that are better-maintained, more functional, or both. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Created in 2009 and never used. It has had a note on it, and the project page that links to it, that it needs to be edited before it can be used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The two album articles and the main article already sufficiently link to and from each other without the need of this navbox. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unused navbox. No main article. None of the links in the navbox lead to articles that are primarily about something called a "JMG Academy". – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - The main article would be JMG Academy, and I have linked it in the template. There is also Category:JMG Academy. The editor has not been around for years. But it looks to me like they were trying to link all articles they believed were part of this. — Maile (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 13:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - there is a main article, but given this is about youth football the independent academies are not notable and a navbox is not needed. GiantSnowman 13:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No transclusions or incoming links from discussions to show how it might be useful. Created in March 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No transclusions. This page was apparently being updated by a bot until 2015, but it appears to have been superseded or abandoned between then and now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was speedy delete per author request. ✗plicit 14:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions to show how it might be useful. Created in mid-2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions. Created in March 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was moved to user space. Izno (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should probably be moved to Tamzin's userpage like the previous template (if they want it). Gonnym (talk) 06:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I'd appreciate that—and would have done so myself if asked. Thanks. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links. We have Wikipedia:Closure requests for the apparent use of this template. Some version of this template could notify or categorize a page, which might be useful, but this is not it. The creation of such a template could be proposed at the talk page for closure requests. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Ironically, I was about to use this template but couldn't remember the discussion. Anyways, I've seen this template substed before. This template is for listings at RfCr. Concur it needs a massive revamp though. CLYDETALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 19:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unused table. Could be used in either History of the iPhone or iPhone but isn't. Even if will be used in one of those, it should be subst into the article and the template deleted. Gonnym (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for forgetting about this one. Goal was to use it in iOS version history as a replacement for the 'green checkbox' template which unsustainably expands both vertically and horizontally every year (bad for mobile readers). But I'll clean it up and put it directly in the article; I have it saved, this can be deleted. DFlhb (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The template implies that a print edition ending automatically makes the article in need of copy-editing and referencing work, which makes no sense. The template also does not have a condition for when it should be removed, and the purpose of the template—to mark articles with an article-facing banner for the purposes of informing readers of the state of the subject—is an inappropriate use of {{ambox}}. Altogether, there doesn't seem to be a justifiable reason to retain this specific template: if the article needs copyediting, there's {{copyedit}}; if it needs references, there's a whole suite for that; if it is out of date, there's {{update}}.
This is also not related to deletion rationale, but just to illustrate the situation more broadly, there has also been a concern brought up by User:Novellasyes (at User talk:Ktkvtsh#Newspapers ending print production) that it's being added to articles that a) aren't even newspapers, b) have no references within the article supporting that they have ended print editions, c) don't seem to have even ended print. So, this template is also creating a content issue by merely being placed on some articles. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I am also going to remove the template from a dozen or so pages on which it was installed, since when the template was installed on those pages, a justification was not included for adding it to them. Justification would equal "reliable sources establishing that the newspaper had stopped print production". The fact that the template as conceived neither requires nor conveniently allows for doing that is one of the reasons I think the template should be deleted. Novellasyes (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment There are also related categories Category:Newspapers transitioned fully online and Category:Newspapers not listed as fully online (currently empty) that I think are not in line with how we categorize publications. I realize that they are categories, not templates but they were created by the same editor and this template is in one category and joined by the other category so I thought I'd mention them here. LizRead!Talk! 17:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. A newspaper that goes exclusively online obviously might need some minor changes in the introduction, but that isn't a massive enough issue that it would require its own special dedicated maintenance template or queue. Its history, for example, will still be as a print publication, so the article doesn't require a comprehensive overhaul to pretend that it was already a website in 1879. So any needed updates can be easily handled by templates that we already have, like "update" and "copyedit", and there's no special need for this. Bearcat (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Message boxes on articles should be about the content of the article, whereas this is related to sourcing on other articles. SWinxy (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Single-article text and table with no template parameters. Subst into article and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose I made this into a template because it shows not only the election results but also the cabinets, so it might be appropriate for different articles. Ironically, I named it after the cabinets, because that was my main focus (I think), but placed it in Elections in the Netherlands. There is, however, also an article List of cabinets of the Netherlands, which lists only the cabinets, but with a different presentation - and more complete, because it also lists pre-WWII cabinets. I don't know why I omitted those.
If there is a disadvantage to having this as a template, feel free to merge it into the article and delete it. DirkvdM (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two uses, neither of which are producing meaningful progress bars. Remove entirely and delete. * Pppery *it has begun... 02:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meta-template only used by one template, and only used to produce a pointless CSS class. Remove the call entirely and delete. * Pppery *it has begun... 02:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Since it's not apparent where the transclusions are coming from, it's being called by Template:Luding. SWinxy (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Subst is simply not a legible solution. Granted, the template needs more uses (plus better documentation and categorization). Thanks for reminding me I made that page. --Iketsi (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Single-article table with no template parameters. Subst into article and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason I haven't nominated this one previously is because it uses TemplateStyles in a way that would be much grosser but still doable in inline styles. I don't think that should stop a merge into the article proper, but (for the closing admin) it is not a trivial subst and delete. Izno (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak delete. It being yuk to make into inline styles is giving me pause. Make it an SVG instead maybe? SWinxy (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meh. Sounds like it will be more work to convert and subst than just leaving it. If someone really feels like tackling that, sure. Otherwise keep as harmless. Folly Mox (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The work is trivial, it's just non-0. Izno (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Molly Fox. If we aren't sure deletion is the best option, then it should be taken to a talk-page discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A list of completed discussions that still require action taken on the template(s) — for example, a merge between two infoboxes — can be found at the "Holding Cell".
01:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
